Trial date is next week. Needed some help. Followed steps in forum and got disclosure (see below). Me not think have any chance at trial except officer or translator not show. Do I even bother to show up? Also if I plead not guilty in hope of getting a plea bargain does the prosecutor necessarily take it to trial (so at any point can i plead guilty?). Is there hope to go to trial and argue the radar could be mistake given street is parallel to a highway? i thinking the radar gun could have picked up highway traffic or with the LIDAR is that no point?

First of all my headlights weren't on. Second, it was around noon so broad day light. I was warning drivers on the other side about the speed trap in broad day light.
I know that police officers dont have ground to prove it in court but I wanted help on how to fight it and what exactly to say to the Judge when I go to court

Hi Your Majesty of the highest traffic courts;

I apologise to you and all the constituents here today as well the Police Services. I realise that what I had done was in error. I was simply trying to perform my civic duty and warn other drivers that there was a cash grab, I mean, speed trap ahead. Check it. I typically don't speed that often, but when I do go, the tires need immediate replacing. So, one day I was flying down some hick town road in Hicksville. There was this school zone with a park and a three way stop, but I thought, nah, I can beat that. See, I was approaching the stop sign at the speed of impending awesomeness when a mother of 3, one in a stroller mind you, gave me the stink eye but I realised it was a warning that the cop was up ahead with radar. So I stopped at the sign, let the mom and her ducklings cross and instead of gunning it, took it easy for the first few minutes and resumed the light and smoke show. Actually, I think this was in Brampton, but regardless, the location is irrelevant.

So you see your honour, karma, I was trying to restore my karma for being a sucky human being by warning these folks about the speeding and the cops in the school zone and you know what, I'll get mine again and when I do...

If I understand correctly, when I get into the court room the prosecutor will go to each one of us and ask how we plead but this will only happen once police officer and disclosure issues are dealt with first. What do you mean by dealt with? Are you saying the prosecutor will not even ask me how I plead until they figure out where the officer is or why I have not been given disclosure?

Also, you say that I can object to them moving the date. What reason do I give them? I have proof that I will be away from my home for 6 days later this month...just curious as to what reason is acceptable.

You will meet with prosecutor before the trial. This has nothing to do with how you plead. This when you can briefy discuss the issues with them and see if they are willing to withdraw. If not, then you can just say are ready to proceed then and go sit down and wait your tuen. Once trials start, the JP will come in and they will start calling everybody up to the front one at a time. you come up to the front and this is when the prosecutor will tell the JP what they want to do, which will either be withdraw the charge, proceed to trial, or re-schedule trial to another date because of XYZ. This is then when you make your requests and objections to JP and ask for charge to be withdrawn or for new trial date because you dont have disclosure. Once all these issues are dealt with and BOTH you and the prosecutor are ready for the trial to start, then the CLERK will stand up and read the charges to you and ask you how you plead, guilty or not guilty. If the trial date is being moved or if the charge is withdrawn then the clerk will not read the charges and you will not be asked how you plead.

If they try to move the date, then object and say that you took today off work and that would mean you would have to take another day off work and that will be hard to do do.

--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca

Was at a family picnic in Port Credit this weekend. Parking lot was ram jammed but found a place to park along the roads in between plenty of other cars. I got out and walked about 15-20 feet in either direction and there was no signage indicating that I couldn't park there. I came back to my car with a $175 ticket for parking in a fire route. I looked around again and saw no signs, but the streetlight near me had the metal bands where a sign perhaps hung once, but certainly wasn't at the time.

I took photos of the entire area, and even a video of me walking from about 20 feet behind my car to 20 feet in front. I already filed a dispute with Mississauga and was given a data of April 2018. Is this a slam dunk throw out case? I wouldn't have parked there if there was a sign that said fire route but there were legitimately no signs in the area.

(Can upload photos when I get home)

You need to make THREE copies of each picture at a reputable place like Wal-Mart and the time/date stamp on them. You also should bring three copies of your video, each one on its own USB stick or DVD. You should also bring a laptop that can play the video as there is no guarantee they will have anything to play it for you. Do NOT bring the video by itself on the laptop because if they decide it is evidence they can take your whole laptop, so if you have video on USB stick or DVD then they can take that instead.

Is it a slam dunk? Not sure, but definitely worth a try.

--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca

My husband was speeding at 80 instead of 65. No, we are not planning on a lawyer. Just pleading guilty by mail is what we are planning to do. There are 2 lines to write an explantion about why speeding. Can you tell me what to write? What do you think will be the fine? Do you think I should attach my clean driving record in Ontario to them, with the letter.

I would just write how sorry you are. Really not much you can say that will change anything in my opinion. 15 mph over will translate to a speeding charge at 24 km/h over and 3 demrits in Ontario.

--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca

Trial date is next week. Needed some help. Followed steps in forum and got disclosure (see below). Me not think have any chance at trial except officer or translator not show. Do I even bother to show up? Also if I plead not guilty in hope of getting a plea bargain does the prosecutor necessarily take it to trial (so at any point can i plead guilty?). Is there hope to go to trial and argue the radar could be mistake given street is parallel to a highway? i thinking the radar gun could have picked up highway traffic or with the LIDAR is that no point?

Definately no chance if that's your defence. If you've never seen a LIDAR, it has a scope similar to a rifle and is very accurate. With a radar you could bring that up, but LIDAR is completely different

The courts ruled this specific action was not illegal and that charges under section 162(2) HTA, which prohibits alternating high-beams on vehicles other than emergency vehicles, did not apply. All outstanding charges were tossed and police no longer issue such tickets at the direction of the Solicitor General.http://www.wheels.ca/news/can-i-get-a-t ... vers-1047/

Whether it's illegal or not, why waste your time with this? Now you have to spend time in court to fight the ticket for something that you could have easily ignored and kept driving.

Hey Shrek. Thank you so much for your response!
I have started drafting disclosures - and I have a few questions:
1.Should it be three different disclosure requests because I have 3 different Notices; each for a different alleged "offense"?
2.I do not have any information about the Prosecution's office - How do i input their address ? (I just have the court address I have to show up at.)
3.Phone number - shall I put in my phone number in my contact info ? I know in the past the prosecution was responsible to mailing the defendant to inform the disclosure was ready if there was no phone number, and we would be able to 11b the whole thing if they didn't mail it in on time or got lazy. Whose responsibility does this fall under as of now ?
-
The by-law 886-10A is a City of Toronto, i believe.
Although, I did provide a statement - I never acknowledged who was actually riding at the time.
To his question, "who rides the motorcycle?"; I answered "Just me in my home." - Which I believe leaves lots of possibilities of sharing the motorcycle with anyone who does not live in my home. i.e. riding buddies, friends.etc etc. Is that enough of a legal loophole that they cannot prove who was actually riding at the time ?
Yes, the pictures show the rider is wearing a helmet, so that cannot identify who is riding the motorcycle at that instant.

Thanks for your help.
Looking forward to read your response.

1. No one disclosure request is fine for all of them.
2. Just put TO: PROSECUTOR at the top of the request form and dont worry about their address and you can hand it to the prosecutor in person at the summons date.
3. Yes put your name, address, phone number and email address so there is a better likely hood they will send it to you when it is ready. It is your responsibility to see if it is ready and it is NOT their responsibility to get it to you so leaving any of that stuff off does not help you at all anymore.

So now about your answering the question...
(1) If the question was "who rides the motorcycle" then yes it leaves a lot of possibilities.
(2) If the officer gets on the stand and tries to testify about anything that you said to him, then you can OBJECT and say that nothing you said can be used without a voire dire. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... #Voir_Dire
(3) If the prosecution wants to have a voir dire to try and get what said admitted as evidence, then you need to claim that you only answered the officers questions because you thought you had to, and that you did NOT volunteer any information. You can also claim that under the Common Law Confessions Rule, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you voluntered the information before it cna be used. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... untariness

--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca

Hi
Received a ticket for doing my civic duty and warning others about a hidden police speed trap. I received a "Prohibited use of Highbeam Headlights" and I was told by few people to fight it because it doesnt hold ground in court. Any tips on how to fight this ticket

Thanks

Is this section 169(2) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act? If so, then wording is very important. It says this:Alternating beams Emergency vehicles
169 (1) Despite section 168, highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light may be used by a public utility emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency and by an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1).

Alternating highbeams on other vehicles prohibited
(2) No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light on any vehicle other than a vehicle referred to in subsection (1).

So note the following two important points:
- Section 169 is to not have alternating highbeams like an emergency vehicle. All emergency vehicles I have ever seen alternate highbeams from left to right and back. Both headlights do NOT go to highbeam together and do not go back to low beam together.
- Section 169(2) specifically says "alternating highbeams" which means that it is the highbeams that are alternating one then the other. If both headlights go highbeam at the same time, then they are not alternating.

--
I am not a lawyer and I am not a paralegal and I do not give legal advice.
All statements made are my opinion only.
--
ShrekTek.ca

1. No one disclosure request is fine for all of them.
2. Just put TO: PROSECUTOR at the top of the request form and dont worry about their address and you can hand it to the prosecutor in person at the summons date.
3. Yes put your name, address, phone number and email address so there is a better likely hood they will send it to you when it is ready. It is your responsibility to see if it is ready and it is NOT their responsibility to get it to you so leaving any of that stuff off does not help you at all anymore.

So now about your answering the question...
(1) If the question was "who rides the motorcycle" then yes it leaves a lot of possibilities.
(2) If the officer gets on the stand and tries to testify about anything that you said to him, then you can OBJECT and say that nothing you said can be used without a voire dire. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... #Voir_Dire
(3) If the prosecution wants to have a voir dire to try and get what said admitted as evidence, then you need to claim that you only answered the officers questions because you thought you had to, and that you did NOT volunteer any information. You can also claim that under the Common Law Confessions Rule, it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you voluntered the information before it cna be used. See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_ ... untariness

Okay, thanks. I got the Disclosure form ready to go. I also plan to ask for an Interpreter for the trial so I am able to communicate fluently without any hiccups thinking of the appropriate word in English, and understand the process in my own language.

Regarding my statement..
Yes, that was the exact question, he wrote down the actual questions and the actual answers in quotes.
"how many motorcycles do you own"
"how many helmets do you own""who rides the motorcycle"
"who has a motorcycle license"

I don't believe the session was audio/video recorded when he took my statement in the room. But I was initially so shell-shocked when he pressed charges and I felt he was manipulating that to get answers out of me. He never mentioned that I can walk out anytime if I wanted to. I wanted to get out of the situation and requested legal help multiple times, and he just gave an answer to suggest it will all come after he is finished. Inadvertently, it made me feel he would provide me what my options would be and that I HAD to stay and let him finish his part of the job.
Now, After he got my statement, I didn't want to sign it, I raised doubt that I was not comfortable signing it. He raised his voice in order to get compliance from me and get it signed. I felt very intimidated by that. I felt I did not have the choice to walk out. Eventually, I recall him giving me a brief overview of what would happen next, and that I can "Google" to find legal help.
I am willing to say all this during the trial if all these points count as - improper methods by the Officer to gather defendant testimony, and if it will get the proceeding out.

I have looked over your links. I will have those written up for the Trial date - so I can refer to it when needed.
In any case, are you sure if they CANNOT prove who was riding the motorcycle at the time, the charges would ALL be dropped ?
Can they still charge the OWNER for the offenses ?

For the Summon Date in September - Do you have any tips ? Is it possible to have it all dropped that day itself by speaking to the Prosecutor.
What should I discuss with them and NOT discuss with them (besides NOT testifying against myself).

A few things I wanted to discuss were:
-Are they charging me as the OWNER or DRIVER (and if so, what proof do they have).
-Question the validity of 3 photographs that are coming from a private source (possible inadmissible or incomplete evidence as it doesn't say the whole story).
-Should I discuss these points of my defense (am I risking it by giving them a headstart on my own defense so they can prepare against it for the Trial)
or Just ask the question about Charges against OWNER or DRIVER and ask for a Trial date and leave ?

Is this section 169(2) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act? If so, then wording is very important. It says this:Alternating beams Emergency vehicles
169 (1) Despite section 168, highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light may be used by a public utility emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency and by an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1).

Alternating highbeams on other vehicles prohibited
(2) No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light on any vehicle other than a vehicle referred to in subsection (1).

So note the following two important points:
- Section 169 is to not have alternating highbeams like an emergency vehicle. All emergency vehicles I have ever seen alternate highbeams from left to right and back. Both headlights do NOT go to highbeam together and do not go back to low beam together.
- Section 169(2) specifically says "alternating highbeams" which means that it is the highbeams that are alternating one then the other. If both headlights go highbeam at the same time, then they are not alternating.

Thanks, Yes the ticket stated that it was section 169 (2)
You make a valid point about the alternating headlights but I was hoping that someone can guide me to what to say at Court

Is this section 169(2) of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act? If so, then wording is very important. It says this:Alternating beams Emergency vehicles
169 (1) Despite section 168, highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light may be used by a public utility emergency vehicle while responding to an emergency and by an emergency vehicle as defined in subsection 144 (1).

Alternating highbeams on other vehicles prohibited
(2) No person shall use highbeam headlamps that produce alternating flashes of white light on any vehicle other than a vehicle referred to in subsection (1).

So note the following two important points:
- Section 169 is to not have alternating highbeams like an emergency vehicle. All emergency vehicles I have ever seen alternate highbeams from left to right and back. Both headlights do NOT go to highbeam together and do not go back to low beam together.
- Section 169(2) specifically says "alternating highbeams" which means that it is the highbeams that are alternating one then the other. If both headlights go highbeam at the same time, then they are not alternating.